Bothering a Pilot on Final [Archive]

rosspilot

May 27th 08, 11:39 PM

On May 27, 1:15*pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
> This weekend I was flying down to Ocean City NJ.... *I was second in
> pattern when someone came on the radio calling to the pilot on final
> approach. *Pilot on final, Pilot on final....you have the wrong freq.
> We were flying, and didn't reply. *He came on again, Pilot on Final
> you have the wrong freq.... *And repeated.
>
> Apparently the "good samaritan" was thinking of Ocean City Md, which
> has a different Freq. *I finally got on and TX that we are on the
> right Freq......
>
> I have to admit, the whole thing was a bit distracting! *My few
> seconds of being distracted by this was enough to affect my pattern
> alt. *I understand the person was trying to be helpful but.....If the
> pilot has already made it to final, why keep on TX'g? *I mean the
> pilot is on Final, let him/her concentrate on putting the plane down!
> The person Tx'g wasn't on the field, didn't see what was going on and
> was creating more of a situation than he was trying to help prevent.
>
> It was a good lesson for me to try and tune out nonesense and just fly
> the plane. *I'm glad it was just a minor distraction like the radio
> and in the future I'll be better prepared for a distraction in
> pattern. *So I guess I should say Thanks!
>
> Doug

I love that airport . . . fly there often with my wife--short walk to
the beach, showers at FBO when you get back to the airport . . . and a
quick one hour flight home.

May 28th 08, 01:07 AM

If he's on the wrong freq.. how is he going to hear the call from the dumb
guy on the ground.
BT

"gliderguynj" > wrote in message
...
> This weekend I was flying down to Ocean City NJ.... I was second in
> pattern when someone came on the radio calling to the pilot on final
> approach. Pilot on final, Pilot on final....you have the wrong freq.
> We were flying, and didn't reply. He came on again, Pilot on Final
> you have the wrong freq.... And repeated.
>
> Apparently the "good samaritan" was thinking of Ocean City Md, which
> has a different Freq. I finally got on and TX that we are on the
> right Freq......
>
> I have to admit, the whole thing was a bit distracting! My few
> seconds of being distracted by this was enough to affect my pattern
> alt. I understand the person was trying to be helpful but.....If the
> pilot has already made it to final, why keep on TX'g? I mean the
> pilot is on Final, let him/her concentrate on putting the plane down!
> The person Tx'g wasn't on the field, didn't see what was going on and
> was creating more of a situation than he was trying to help prevent.
>
> It was a good lesson for me to try and tune out nonesense and just fly
> the plane. I'm glad it was just a minor distraction like the radio
> and in the future I'll be better prepared for a distraction in
> pattern. So I guess I should say Thanks!
>
> Doug

Dave[_5_]

May 28th 08, 02:06 AM

On May 27, 2:34*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT), gliderguynj
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >I understand the person was trying to be helpful but.....
>
> The FAA regulations and Advisory Circulars only mention broadcasting
> position on CTAF. *There is no mention of communicating air-to-air. *
>
> I know CTAF is being used for almost everything but that for which it
> is intended. *But that doesn't make it okay. *
>
> Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position,
> and nothing else.

I'd agree. Particularly annoying are these clods running around with
handheld radios - using them
to keep track of each other, coordinate lunch, etc - nothing
whatsoever to do with the safety of
flight. Sometimes it's better to to turn the radio off than listen to
the drivel.

Dave

Bob Fry

May 28th 08, 06:01 AM

Eventually you learn to ignore or deal with distractions like that.
I'll always remember a Young Eagle I gave a ride to in a J-3. I
always asked if they wanted the "door" open or close...this young lad
wanted it closed. That's fine, we take off, do the circuit, and I'm
30 seconds from touchdown. He must have been thinking the whole time
about his decision because he chose then to yell "OK, you can open the
door!" Not wishing to disappoint I reached over and flopped it
down. That way he could brag to his friends how he flew in a plane
with the door open.

Another time I gave a Dad and his two sons a ride in a C-182, with the
older son sitting in front. A 182 with full flaps on landing can
point down at a good angle, and I guess it scared the kid because on
final he started yelling "we're going to crash! we're going to crash!"
I started looking around to see why...didn't occur to me later the
nose-down attitude was the only reason.
--
The world is divided into people who think they are right.
~ Unknown

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 28th 08, 04:35 PM

> Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position,
> and nothing else.

>I'd agree. Particularly annoying are these clods running around with
>handheld radios - using them
>to keep track of each other, coordinate lunch, etc - nothing
>whatsoever to do with the safety of
>flight. Sometimes it's better to to turn the radio off than listen to
>the drivel.

One of the only upsides of GA flying declining is that there is far less of
that noise on the radio now. Personally, I'd like to suffer with the drivel
again.

I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
at 4500 feet, heading West..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 28th 08, 04:37 PM

> If he's on the wrong freq.. how is he going to hear the call from the dumb
> guy on the ground.

ROTFL! That's as dumb as the guys who -- in the presence of a stuck
microphone clogging the frequency -- announce into the blue that "Someone's
got a stuck mike -- check your mike!" -- as if the offender could hear them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Maynard

May 28th 08, 04:49 PM

On 2008-05-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
> at 4500 feet, heading West..."

I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
the point?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June)

Ross

May 28th 08, 05:20 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position,
>> and nothing else.
>
>> I'd agree. Particularly annoying are these clods running around with
>> handheld radios - using them
>> to keep track of each other, coordinate lunch, etc - nothing
>> whatsoever to do with the safety of
>> flight. Sometimes it's better to to turn the radio off than listen to
>> the drivel.
>
> One of the only upsides of GA flying declining is that there is far less
> of that noise on the radio now. Personally, I'd like to suffer with the
> drivel again.
>
> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the
> field at 4500 feet, heading West..."

Or the folks that announce their position and say "anyone in the
pattern, please advise". How unnecessary if they listen before hand. The
FAA has stated in writing they do not like it. I think it is in the AIM.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

Dale[_3_]

May 28th 08, 06:22 PM

In article <GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>
> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
> at 4500 feet, heading West..."

Is that really so bad? Quite common to use an airport as a waypoint, by
making the announcement it may let the other guy at 4500 overflying know
to put the paper down.

In Canada that kind of report is required if there is a Mandatory Freq.

Dale[_3_]

May 28th 08, 06:24 PM

In article <7%e%j.183762$yE1.118752@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> ROTFL! That's as dumb as the guys who -- in the presence of a stuck
> microphone clogging the frequency -- announce into the blue that "Someone's
> got a stuck mike -- check your mike!" -- as if the offender could hear them.

Once heard an Approach Controller tell a guy with a weak radio "you're
weak and almost unreadable, turn your volume up!".

gliderguynj

May 28th 08, 06:46 PM

On May 27, 8:07*pm, "BT" > wrote:
> If he's on the wrong freq.. how is he going to hear the call from the dumb
> guy on the ground.
> BT

It was someone on "our" freq thinking we were trying to communicate to
an airport that uses a different freq.

doug

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 28th 08, 09:28 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:7%e%j.183762$yE1.118752@attbi_s21:

>> If he's on the wrong freq.. how is he going to hear the call from the
>> dumb guy on the ground.
>
> ROTFL! That's as dumb as the guys who -- in the presence of a stuck
> microphone clogging the frequency -- announce into the blue that
> "Someone's got a stuck mike -- check your mike!" -- as if the offender
> could hear them.

You're an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 28th 08, 09:30 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21:

>> Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position,
>> and nothing else.
>
>>I'd agree. Particularly annoying are these clods running around with
>>handheld radios - using them
>>to keep track of each other, coordinate lunch, etc - nothing
>>whatsoever to do with the safety of
>>flight. Sometimes it's better to to turn the radio off than listen to
>>the drivel.
>
> One of the only upsides of GA flying declining is that there is far
> less of that noise on the radio now. Personally, I'd like to suffer
> with the drivel again.
>

Well, we do have to listen to you, so...

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

May 28th 08, 10:53 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

>
> Well, we do have to listen to you, so...
>
>
> Bertie

and you, so........

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

May 29th 08, 12:16 AM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:%vk%j.3$U_5.2
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Well, we do have to listen to you, so...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> and you, so........
>
>
>

Ooow! Another IKYABWAI poast..

Sparkling!

Bertie

Tina

May 29th 08, 01:59 AM

My personal favorite, and this was the tower at KBED, is we were
flying the ILS into 11 at KBED, at night, ceiling was said to be 300
feet or so, and half way in from the OM tower asked for the landing
light. Can you think of a better way to ruin night vision than
lighting up the inside of a cloud?

"Hanscom Tower, we'll wait until we break out."

On May 27, 1:15 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
> This weekend I was flying down to Ocean City NJ.... I was second in
> pattern when someone came on the radio calling to the pilot on final
> approach. Pilot on final, Pilot on final....you have the wrong freq.
> We were flying, and didn't reply. He came on again, Pilot on Final
> you have the wrong freq.... And repeated.
>
> Apparently the "good samaritan" was thinking of Ocean City Md, which
> has a different Freq. I finally got on and TX that we are on the
> right Freq......
>
> I have to admit, the whole thing was a bit distracting! My few
> seconds of being distracted by this was enough to affect my pattern
> alt. I understand the person was trying to be helpful but.....If the
> pilot has already made it to final, why keep on TX'g? I mean the
> pilot is on Final, let him/her concentrate on putting the plane down!
> The person Tx'g wasn't on the field, didn't see what was going on and
> was creating more of a situation than he was trying to help prevent.
>
> It was a good lesson for me to try and tune out nonesense and just fly
> the plane. I'm glad it was just a minor distraction like the radio
> and in the future I'll be better prepared for a distraction in
> pattern. So I guess I should say Thanks!
>
> Doug

[email protected]

May 29th 08, 04:01 AM

On May 28, 10:22 am, Dale > wrote:
> In article <GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
> > at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>
> Is that really so bad? Quite common to use an airport as a waypoint, by
> making the announcement it may let the other guy at 4500 overflying know
> to put the paper down.
>
> In Canada that kind of report is required if there is a Mandatory Freq.

I recall being taught to announce a position when overflying an
airport (assuming you aren't overflying by some ridiculous amount).
I announce when overflying to have a look-see before joining the
pattern. Someone else might be doing the same thing.

Jay Maynard

May 29th 08, 04:14 AM

On 2008-05-29, > wrote:
> I recall being taught to announce a position when overflying an
> airport (assuming you aren't overflying by some ridiculous amount).
> I announce when overflying to have a look-see before joining the
> pattern. Someone else might be doing the same thing.

Me too. It's the guys who announce that they're overflying FRM at 4500 MSL
(airport elevation is 1162) that leave me scratching my head.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June)

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 29th 08, 05:42 AM

>> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the
>> field
>> at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>
> I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
> the point?

I confess to making that announcement a couple of times, when I was a
newly-minted private pilot, as I passed over my home field. I think the
guys doing it are just so damned proud of their accomplishment that they
want their buds -- or anyone else listening -- to know that they're "up
there"...

It's really just silly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-05-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the
>> field
>> at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>
> I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
> the point?
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June)

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 29th 08, 05:46 AM

> I recall being taught to announce a position when overflying an
> airport (assuming you aren't overflying by some ridiculous amount).
> I announce when overflying to have a look-see before joining the
> pattern. Someone else might be doing the same thing.

Sure, if you're over-flying an airport that you're landing at, announcing is
proper procedure. But if you're flying cross-country, it's kinda silly to
announce that you're over-flying every airport en route...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
> wrote in message
...
> On May 28, 10:22 am, Dale > wrote:
>> In article <GYe%j.183758$yE1.50750@attbi_s21>,
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the
>> > field
>> > at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>>
>> Is that really so bad? Quite common to use an airport as a waypoint, by
>> making the announcement it may let the other guy at 4500 overflying know
>> to put the paper down.
>>
>> In Canada that kind of report is required if there is a Mandatory Freq.
>
> I recall being taught to announce a position when overflying an
> airport (assuming you aren't overflying by some ridiculous amount).
> I announce when overflying to have a look-see before joining the
> pattern. Someone else might be doing the same thing.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 29th 08, 12:38 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:wuq%j.184699$yE1.158333@attbi_s21:

>>> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying
>>> the field
>>> at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>>
>> I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF.
>> What's the point?
>
> I confess to making that announcement a couple of times, when I was a
> newly-minted private pilot, as I passed over my home field. I think
> the guys doing it are just so damned proud of their accomplishment
> that they want their buds -- or anyone else listening -- to know that
> they're "up there"...
>
> It's really just silly.

Just like you.

Bertie

Shirl

May 29th 08, 12:57 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Sure, if you're over-flying an airport that you're landing at, announcing is
> proper procedure. But if you're flying cross-country, it's kinda silly to
> announce that you're over-flying every airport en route...

Depends, IMO. We have several uncontrolled fields in this area. If I'm
in the pattern and someone is overflying 500 feet-or-so above (I realize
if you're on a x-c, you'd likely be higher, but maybe not), I find it
helpful to know if they're going to join the pattern or if they're
overflying and continuing on. I prefer the call to not knowing.

I heard someone talking about how it isn't necessary to make a call
coming into an uncontrolled airport "if it isn't busy". So if 6 people
are coming in thinking it isn't busy because it's quiet (there goes that
idea!). I absolutely understand not making unnecessary radio calls, but
why are some *so* opposed to making a call?

Shirl

May 29th 08, 01:01 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I confess to making that announcement a couple of times, when I was a
> newly-minted private pilot, as I passed over my home field. I think the
> guys doing it are just so damned proud of their accomplishment that they
> want their buds -- or anyone else listening -- to know that they're "up
> there"...
>
> It's really just silly.

I disagree that it's "just silly" or that it's only "newly minted
private pilots" bragging to buds that they're up there. Around here,
lots of people fly close to pattern altitude. If I'm in the pattern, I
appreciate knowing what they're staying or continuing on vs. having to
guess.

Steve Foley

May 29th 08, 01:27 PM

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> My personal favorite, and this was the tower at KBED, is we were
> flying the ILS into 11 at KBED, at night, ceiling was said to be 300
> feet or so, and half way in from the OM tower asked for the landing
> light. Can you think of a better way to ruin night vision than
> lighting up the inside of a cloud?
>
> "Hanscom Tower, we'll wait until we break out."
>

Probably the same Hanscom controller that told someone to position and hold
while I was on short final. What really sucked was that the sun was shining
through the prop on final. I really didn't enjoy going through that strobe
effect again.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

May 29th 08, 02:52 PM

Shirl wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> Sure, if you're over-flying an airport that you're landing at, announcing is
>> proper procedure. But if you're flying cross-country, it's kinda silly to
>> announce that you're over-flying every airport en route...
>
> Depends, IMO. We have several uncontrolled fields in this area. If I'm
> in the pattern and someone is overflying 500 feet-or-so above (I realize
> if you're on a x-c, you'd likely be higher, but maybe not), I find it
> helpful to know if they're going to join the pattern or if they're
> overflying and continuing on. I prefer the call to not knowing.
>
> I heard someone talking about how it isn't necessary to make a call
> coming into an uncontrolled airport "if it isn't busy". So if 6 people
> are coming in thinking it isn't busy because it's quiet (there goes that
> idea!). I absolutely understand not making unnecessary radio calls, but
> why are some *so* opposed to making a call?

The way I taught this was to consider the altitude and use common sense.
If crossing high enough that you are well out of the transition area
where someone coming out of or descending into an uncontrolled airport
would be, no need to say anything.

If however, you were crossing en route above the pattern altitude but
inside the area right above that....say to within a thousand feet above,
where aircraft entering or leaving the area might be present, it's a
good idea to let the airport know who you are where you are and where
you're headed.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 29th 08, 03:02 PM

> I disagree that it's "just silly" or that it's only "newly minted
> private pilots" bragging to buds that they're up there. Around here,
> lots of people fly close to pattern altitude. If I'm in the pattern, I
> appreciate knowing what they're staying or continuing on vs. having to
> guess.

The example I used was 4500 feet, which, around here, puts you almost 4000'
AGL -- way above pattern altitude.

If you're at, say, 2000 feet, a call to let people know that you're in the
neighborhood is probably a good idea.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera

May 29th 08, 04:06 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:52:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>If crossing high enough that you are well out of the transition area
>where someone coming out of or descending into an uncontrolled airport
>would be, no need to say anything.
>
>If however, you were crossing en route above the pattern altitude but
>inside the area right above that....say to within a thousand feet above,
>where aircraft entering or leaving the area might be present, it's a
>good idea to let the airport know who you are where you are and where
>you're headed.

The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:

AC No: 9042F

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
will help reduce frequency
congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
and enhance safety of flight:
(1) Select the correct CTAF frequency.
(2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
in each transmission.
(3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
(4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
--> landing or overflight.
Request wind information and runway in use.
(5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
(6) Report leaving the runway.

The AIM also mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over flight intent,
and while stating intentions on CTAF is mentioned in 4-1-9(g)(1), I
find no mention of broadcasting over flight intent on CTAF:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0401.html
4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating
Control Towers

g. Self-Announce Position and/or Intentions

1. General. Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast
their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on
the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports
which do not have an FSS on the airport. The self-announce
procedure should also be used if a pilot is unable to communicate
with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots stating, "Traffic in
the area, please advise" is not a recognized Self-Announce
Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any
condition.

So, announcing intent to over fly an airport on CTAF is a bit
ambiguous. As you have indicated, if it seems prudent, do it.

Gezellig

May 29th 08, 04:18 PM

On Wed, 28 May 2008 17:59:51 -0700 (PDT), Tina wrote:

> My personal favorite, and this was the tower at KBED, is we were
> flying the ILS into 11 at KBED, at night, ceiling was said to be 300
> feet or so, and half way in from the OM tower asked for the landing
> light. Can you think of a better way to ruin night vision than
> lighting up the inside of a cloud?

Just don't inhale.

> "Hanscom Tower, we'll wait until we break out."

lol

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 29th 08, 04:21 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>
> AC No: 9042F
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
> will help reduce frequency
> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
> and enhance safety of flight:
-->> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency. <<--
> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
> in each transmission.
> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
> --> landing or overflight.
> Request wind information and runway in use.
> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>
>

What do you mean? It's mentioned in the step 1 of what you posted.

Larry Dighera

May 29th 08, 05:24 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:21:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
>> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
>> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>>
>> AC No: 9042F
>>
>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
>> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
>> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
>> will help reduce frequency
>> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
>> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
>> and enhance safety of flight:
>-->> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency. <<--
>> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
>> in each transmission.
>> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
>> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
>> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
>> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
>> --> landing or overflight.
>> Request wind information and runway in use.
>> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
>> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>>
>>
>
>What do you mean? It's mentioned in the step 1 of what you posted.

Indeed. I overlooked that.

I guess I didn't expect to see CTAF mentioned under UNICOM.

The AIM hast this definition of UNICOM stations:

e. Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)

1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication
station which may provide airport information at public use
airports where there is no tower or FSS.

And the Pilot/Controller Glossary provides this definition of CTAF:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/C.HTM
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)- A frequency designed for
the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while
operating to or from an airport without an operating control
tower. The CTAF may be a UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency
and is identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.

(Refer to AC 90-42, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
Operating Control Towers.)

(neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 1 definitions)

So while the CTAF _frequency_ may be a UNICOM frequency also, I always
considered UNICOM stations to be manned, while I apparently
erroneously considered radio operation on CTAF frequencies to be
limited to one-way self-announced position and intention broadcasts.
Obviously CTAF is only so limited when there is neither an operating
UNICOM nor FSS station at the field.

Despite my confusion over the nomenclature, these documents seem to be
the sole guidance concerning announcing overflight intentions provided
by FAA. Neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 91.

Ken S. Tucker

May 29th 08, 05:32 PM

On May 29, 8:06 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:52:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >If crossing high enough that you are well out of the transition area
> >where someone coming out of or descending into an uncontrolled airport
> >would be, no need to say anything.
>
> >If however, you were crossing en route above the pattern altitude but
> >inside the area right above that....say to within a thousand feet above,
> >where aircraft entering or leaving the area might be present, it's a
> >good idea to let the airport know who you are where you are and where
> >you're headed.
>
> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>
> AC No: 9042F
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryC...
> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
> will help reduce frequency
> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
> and enhance safety of flight:
> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency.
> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
> in each transmission.
> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
> --> landing or overflight.
> Request wind information and runway in use.
> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>
> The AIM also mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over flight intent,
> and while stating intentions on CTAF is mentioned in 4-1-9(g)(1), I
> find no mention of broadcasting over flight intent on CTAF:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpub...
> 4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating
> Control Towers
>
> g. Self-Announce Position and/or Intentions
>
> 1. General. Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast
> their position or intended flight activity or ground operation on
> the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports
> which do not have an FSS on the airport. The self-announce
> procedure should also be used if a pilot is unable to communicate
> with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots stating, "Traffic in
> the area, please advise" is not a recognized Self-Announce
> Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under any
> condition.
>
> So, announcing intent to over fly an airport on CTAF is a bit
> ambiguous. As you have indicated, if it seems prudent, do it.

Where we flew we used ettiquette.
Example: We're approaching an airport and at 5 miles,
we'd radio tower "Yankee Yankee Golf approaching
from the XXX, intends to enter the circuit.
I'd hear, "Roger, your clear".

Next I'd key radio just before doing my 30 degree
bank to get into the down-wind, so the controller
can get an easy visual of me, "YYG turning onto
downwind". Same for every other turn, to final.

Radio work is 1st for the controller, and secondly
for other a/c, he's the boss.
Ken

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 29th 08, 05:43 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:21:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
>>> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
>>> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>>>
>>> AC No: 9042F
>>>
>>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
>>> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
>>> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
>>> will help reduce frequency
>>> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
>>> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
>>> and enhance safety of flight:
>> -->> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency. <<--
>>> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
>>> in each transmission.
>>> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
>>> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
>>> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
>>> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
>>> --> landing or overflight.
>>> Request wind information and runway in use.
>>> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
>>> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>>>
>>>
>> What do you mean? It's mentioned in the step 1 of what you posted.
>
>
> Indeed. I overlooked that.
>
> I guess I didn't expect to see CTAF mentioned under UNICOM.
>
>
> The AIM hast this definition of UNICOM stations:
>
> e. Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
>
> 1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication
> station which may provide airport information at public use
> airports where there is no tower or FSS.
>
>
> And the Pilot/Controller Glossary provides this definition of CTAF:
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/C.HTM
> COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)- A frequency designed for
> the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while
> operating to or from an airport without an operating control
> tower. The CTAF may be a UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency
> and is identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
>
> (Refer to AC 90-42, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
> Operating Control Towers.)
>
> (neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 1 definitions)
>
> So while the CTAF _frequency_ may be a UNICOM frequency also, I always
> considered UNICOM stations to be manned, while I apparently
> erroneously considered radio operation on CTAF frequencies to be
> limited to one-way self-announced position and intention broadcasts.
> Obviously CTAF is only so limited when there is neither an operating
> UNICOM nor FSS station at the field.
>
> Despite my confusion over the nomenclature, these documents seem to be
> the sole guidance concerning announcing overflight intentions provided
> by FAA. Neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 91.

I did some Googleing of CTAF/UNICOM on Arinav and there are 6100 hits
for that exact phrase. I've not flown to a huge number of airports in my
career of flying but most of them have been uncontrolled fields and I
can't remember a single one since the first big reduction of FSS that
didn't use the Unicom as the CTAF.

C J Campbell[_1_]

May 29th 08, 06:09 PM

On 2008-05-27 11:34:06 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT), gliderguynj
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> I understand the person was trying to be helpful but.....
>
> The FAA regulations and Advisory Circulars only mention broadcasting
> position on CTAF. There is no mention of communicating air-to-air.
>
> I know CTAF is being used for almost everything but that for which it
> is intended. But that doesn't make it okay.
>
> Personally, I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my position,
> and nothing else.

Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
pilots are saying on the radio.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Robert M. Gary

May 29th 08, 06:23 PM

On May 28, 8:49*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-05-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
> > at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>
> I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
> the point?

4500 feet is probably a bit high to announce but when I was flying the
Aeronca I would announce over flying fields because I was usually only
500 feet over pattern altitude (the Aeronca didn't like going high).
Its helpful to pilots entering and leaving the pattern to know there
is someone right above them.I would always try to cross directly over
if I had to fly by the airport because there is less traffic over the
top.

-Robert, CFII

Dale[_3_]

May 29th 08, 06:57 PM

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> When giving rides to new pax, I brief them on the sterile cockpit concept,
> and tell them unless there's another plane bearing down on us, or our own
> plane has parts falling off or we are on fire, they should keep quiet.

When I bought the airplane the wife was "okay" with flying (she was an
avid skydiver" but not super comfortable. As time went on she began to
enjoy flying as much as jumping. As I built experience we elected to
start going "off airport" and expand our area of operation and
enjoyment. Now the wife became so comfortable she tended to chat all the
time. For me it became a little distracting -since being an experience
husband I know that not acknowledging something the wife says can have
dire results - yet I need to concentrate when sticking the 182 into a
short strip somewhere so I asked that she refrain from talking during
takeoff and landing. Well, one day we were looking for a strip I'd seen
another 182 go into. I found a new set of tire tracks that didn't have
any wreckage on either end (hey, he HE can do it I can do it) and
thought I'd found the 182 strip. It looked a little short but as I said
no wreckage so it must be ok. I did a low pass to check the surface and
during the pass the wife started to say something but cut herself off.
I'm thinking allright, she's going to comply!! <G> I went around and
came back to land. The strip was short - 540', shortest thing I'd ever
been on. I was kind of animated but she was ho hum about it. I
remember she'd started to say something so asked what it was. She then
pointed out that just to the south of this strip was another stip --
about 1100 feet long of hard packed dried mud. <G> Needless to say the
1100 strip was the 182 strip. I also amended my sterile cockpit ruling
so "if we're going to die" you can talk. <G>

We went on to work a lot of short stuff and had a great time with our
182...and never left wreckage anywhere.

Here's one of them: http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg

Larry Dighera

May 29th 08, 07:37 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:43:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:21:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
>>>> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
>>>> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>>>>
>>>> AC No: 9042F
>>>>
>>>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
>>>> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
>>>> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
>>>> will help reduce frequency
>>>> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
>>>> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
>>>> and enhance safety of flight:
>>> -->> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency. <<--
>>>> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
>>>> in each transmission.
>>>> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
>>>> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
>>>> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
>>>> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
>>>> --> landing or overflight.
>>>> Request wind information and runway in use.
>>>> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
>>>> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What do you mean? It's mentioned in the step 1 of what you posted.
>>
>>
>> Indeed. I overlooked that.
>>
>> I guess I didn't expect to see CTAF mentioned under UNICOM.
>>
>>
>> The AIM hast this definition of UNICOM stations:
>>
>> e. Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
>>
>> 1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication
>> station which may provide airport information at public use
>> airports where there is no tower or FSS.
>>
>>
>> And the Pilot/Controller Glossary provides this definition of CTAF:
>>
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/C.HTM
>> COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)- A frequency designed for
>> the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while
>> operating to or from an airport without an operating control
>> tower. The CTAF may be a UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency
>> and is identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
>>
>> (Refer to AC 90-42, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
>> Operating Control Towers.)
>>
>> (neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 1 definitions)
>>
>> So while the CTAF _frequency_ may be a UNICOM frequency also, I always
>> considered UNICOM stations to be manned, while I apparently
>> erroneously considered radio operation on CTAF frequencies to be
>> limited to one-way self-announced position and intention broadcasts.
>> Obviously CTAF is only so limited when there is neither an operating
>> UNICOM nor FSS station at the field.
>>
>> Despite my confusion over the nomenclature, these documents seem to be
>> the sole guidance concerning announcing overflight intentions provided
>> by FAA. Neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 91.
>
>I did some Googleing of CTAF/UNICOM on Arinav and there are 6100 hits
>for that exact phrase. I've not flown to a huge number of airports in my
>career of flying but most of them have been uncontrolled fields and I
>can't remember a single one since the first big reduction of FSS that
>didn't use the Unicom as the CTAF.

Agreed. However, the FAA documents I cited mention stating your
intention to over fly the field to UNICOM, which may coincidentally be
on the CTAF. I see no mention of self-announcing your intention to
over fly the field other than to UNICOM. That is my point.

Am I missing yours?

At any rate, the FAA documents don't appear to provide any guidance as
to the AGL altitude at which broadcasting a pilot's intention to over
fly the field might be inappropriate. Clearly when it's not a factor
for those flights arriving or departing, I see little need for it.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 29th 08, 08:11 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 11:43:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:21:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Advisory Circular mentions notifying UNICOM stations of over
>>>>> flight of uncontrolled fields, but I find no mention of
>>>>> self-announcing over flight intention on CTAF:
>>>>>
>>>>> AC No: 9042F
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/c54e50252a7fa56d862569d8007804ba/$FILE/ac90-42F.pdf
>>>>> 10 . UNICOM COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES.
>>>>> a. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the flowing practices
>>>>> will help reduce frequency
>>>>> congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions,
>>>>> help identify the location of aircraft in. the traffic pattern,
>>>>> and enhance safety of flight:
>>>> -->> (1) Select the correct CTAF frequency. <<--
>>>>> (2) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling
>>>>> in each transmission.
>>>>> (3) Speak slowly and distinctly.
>>>>> (4) Notify the UNICOM station approximately 10 miles from the
>>>>> airport, reporting altitude, aircraft type, aircraft
>>>>> identification, location relative to the airport, and whether
>>>>> --> landing or overflight.
>>>>> Request wind information and runway in use.
>>>>> (5) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
>>>>> (6) Report leaving the runway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What do you mean? It's mentioned in the step 1 of what you posted.
>>>
>>> Indeed. I overlooked that.
>>>
>>> I guess I didn't expect to see CTAF mentioned under UNICOM.
>>>
>>>
>>> The AIM hast this definition of UNICOM stations:
>>>
>>> e. Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
>>>
>>> 1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication
>>> station which may provide airport information at public use
>>> airports where there is no tower or FSS.
>>>
>>>
>>> And the Pilot/Controller Glossary provides this definition of CTAF:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/C.HTM
>>> COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)- A frequency designed for
>>> the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while
>>> operating to or from an airport without an operating control
>>> tower. The CTAF may be a UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency
>>> and is identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
>>>
>>> (Refer to AC 90-42, Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
>>> Operating Control Towers.)
>>>
>>> (neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 1 definitions)
>>>
>>> So while the CTAF _frequency_ may be a UNICOM frequency also, I always
>>> considered UNICOM stations to be manned, while I apparently
>>> erroneously considered radio operation on CTAF frequencies to be
>>> limited to one-way self-announced position and intention broadcasts.
>>> Obviously CTAF is only so limited when there is neither an operating
>>> UNICOM nor FSS station at the field.
>>>
>>> Despite my confusion over the nomenclature, these documents seem to be
>>> the sole guidance concerning announcing overflight intentions provided
>>> by FAA. Neither CTAF nor UNICOM are mentioned in Part 91.
>> I did some Googleing of CTAF/UNICOM on Arinav and there are 6100 hits
>> for that exact phrase. I've not flown to a huge number of airports in my
>> career of flying but most of them have been uncontrolled fields and I
>> can't remember a single one since the first big reduction of FSS that
>> didn't use the Unicom as the CTAF.
>
> Agreed. However, the FAA documents I cited mention stating your
> intention to over fly the field to UNICOM, which may coincidentally be
> on the CTAF. I see no mention of self-announcing your intention to
> over fly the field other than to UNICOM. That is my point.
>
> Am I missing yours?

No I don't think you are. I think the folks missing the point is the
guys that wrote the AIM. CTAF can be Unicom, Multicom, FSS or an
inactive Tower Freq. For some reason they decided to put it under the
heading of Unicom.

>
> At any rate, the FAA documents don't appear to provide any guidance as
> to the AGL altitude at which broadcasting a pilot's intention to over
> fly the field might be inappropriate. Clearly when it's not a factor
> for those flights arriving or departing, I see little need for it.

I can see one other reason. Skydiving operations. Where I learned to fly
we didn't have much jumping. But at the next airport over they had it
going on every weekend and often during the week and I was taught it was
a good idea to announce when ever I was anywhere near the place weekend
or not.

Scott Skylane

May 29th 08, 08:39 PM

C J Campbell wrote:

> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
> pilots are saying on the radio.

Respectfully, CJ,

That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
booted out of my cockpit.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Larry Dighera

May 29th 08, 09:00 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>
>I can see one other reason [for announcing position over an uncontrolled
>field on UNICOM/CTAF]. Skydiving operations.

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind also.

>Where I learned to fly we didn't have much jumping. But at the next airport
>over they had it going on every weekend and often during the week and I was
>taught it was a good idea to announce when ever I was anywhere near the
>place weekend or not.

That's the first I've heard of that, but I received my primary flight
instruction back in 1970. Sky diving wasn't very prevalent back then.
Needless to say, this question never came up during my subsequent
biennial flight reviews.

My experience, albeit primarily limited to Parris
http://www.skydiveperris.com/ , is that the jump-plane announces his
intention on CTAF to drop several minutes before and also immediately
before the "jumpers away" broadcast. SoCal Approach seems aware of
these times also, as they'll advise the pilot receiving Radar Traffic
Advisory Service.

Although it's been many years since I read Say Again,Please, I recall
that Bob Gardener did a good job of fleshing-out the FAA guidance on
radio operations at uncontrolled fields.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 29th 08, 09:50 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> I can see one other reason [for announcing position over an uncontrolled
>> field on UNICOM/CTAF]. Skydiving operations.
>
> Yeah, that thought crossed my mind also.
>
>> Where I learned to fly we didn't have much jumping. But at the next airport
>> over they had it going on every weekend and often during the week and I was
>> taught it was a good idea to announce when ever I was anywhere near the
>> place weekend or not.
>
> That's the first I've heard of that, but I received my primary flight
> instruction back in 1970. Sky diving wasn't very prevalent back then.
> Needless to say, this question never came up during my subsequent
> biennial flight reviews.
>
> My experience, albeit primarily limited to Parris
> http://www.skydiveperris.com/ , is that the jump-plane announces his
> intention on CTAF to drop several minutes before and also immediately
> before the "jumpers away" broadcast. SoCal Approach seems aware of
> these times also, as they'll advise the pilot receiving Radar Traffic
> Advisory Service.
>
> Although it's been many years since I read Say Again,Please, I recall
> that Bob Gardener did a good job of fleshing-out the FAA guidance on
> radio operations at uncontrolled fields.
>

Well I'm not talking about SoCal I'm talking about SoArk and there
aren't any controlers around to help and since it is so much less busy
folks tend to forget some of the procedures. And while they do announce
the jumpers they don't always announce the dives the airplane makes to
get back on the ground for the next load.

Let's face it. If the CTAF frequency is so busy that getting an
announcement that you are flying over at 4500 feet is a problem it might
not be a bad idea to get the announcement out there anyway.

If the CTAF frequency is empty what does it hurt to make the call?

Shirl

May 29th 08, 10:06 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Agreed. However, the FAA documents I cited mention stating your
> intention to over fly the field to UNICOM, which may coincidentally be
> on the CTAF. I see no mention of self-announcing your intention to
> over fly the field other than to UNICOM. That is my point.
>
> Am I missing yours?

I am following both of you, I think ... but my point wasn't whether it's
part of the FAA documents, only that it's not necessarily "just silly"
or only a new pilot bragging that he/she's there. We can't all make up
our own techniques (although some clearly DO!), but if I'm in the
pattern at an uncontrolled field and someone's flying overhead at an
altitude that's low enough to have me wondering, I appreciate the call
announcing his intent, even if it isn't mandated in FAA documentation.

> At any rate, the FAA documents don't appear to provide any guidance as
> to the AGL altitude at which broadcasting a pilot's intention to over
> fly the field might be inappropriate. Clearly when it's not a factor
> for those flights arriving or departing, I see little need for it.

Agreed, absolutely. I was talking about when it's higher, but close
enough that those in the pattern are wondering whether he's going to
drop in or keep going.

Bob Noel

May 30th 08, 01:03 AM

In article >,
Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:

> Let's face it. If the CTAF frequency is so busy that getting an
> announcement that you are flying over at 4500 feet is a problem it might
> not be a bad idea to get the announcement out there anyway.

In the northeast, the unicom frequencies are quite busy, not because
of local traffic, but because so few frequencies are shared by so
many airports.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Dave[_5_]

May 30th 08, 03:04 AM

On May 29, 4:00*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >I can see one other reason [for announcing position over an uncontrolled
> >field on UNICOM/CTAF]. Skydiving operations.
>
> Yeah, that thought crossed my mind also.
>
> >Where I learned to fly we didn't have much jumping. But at the next airport
> >over they had it going on every weekend and often during the week and I was
> >taught it was a good idea to announce when ever I was anywhere near the
> >place weekend or not.
>
> That's the first I've heard of that, but I received my primary flight
> instruction back in 1970. *Sky diving wasn't very prevalent back then.
> Needless to say, this question never came up during my subsequent
> biennial flight reviews. *
>
> My experience, albeit primarily limited to Parrishttp://www.skydiveperris.com/, is that the jump-plane announces his
> intention on CTAF to drop several minutes before and also immediately
> before the "jumpers away" broadcast. *SoCal Approach seems aware of
> these times also, as they'll advise the pilot receiving Radar Traffic
> Advisory Service. *
>
> Although it's been many years since I read Say Again,Please, I recall
> that Bob Gardener did a good job of fleshing-out the FAA guidance on
> radio operations at uncontrolled fields. *

Dave[_5_]

May 30th 08, 03:11 AM

On May 29, 4:00*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:39 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
> >I can see one other reason [for announcing position over an uncontrolled
> >field on UNICOM/CTAF]. Skydiving operations.
>
> Yeah, that thought crossed my mind also.
>
> >Where I learned to fly we didn't have much jumping. But at the next airport
> >over they had it going on every weekend and often during the week and I was
> >taught it was a good idea to announce when ever I was anywhere near the
> >place weekend or not.
>
> That's the first I've heard of that, but I received my primary flight
> instruction back in 1970. *Sky diving wasn't very prevalent back then.
> Needless to say, this question never came up during my subsequent
> biennial flight reviews. *
>
> My experience, albeit primarily limited to Parrishttp://www.skydiveperris.com/, is that the jump-plane announces his
> intention on CTAF to drop several minutes before and also immediately
> before the "jumpers away" broadcast. *SoCal Approach seems aware of
> these times also, as they'll advise the pilot receiving Radar Traffic
> Advisory Service. *
>
My experience with skydiving operations is that the pilot usually
makes an "announcement" so fast as to be
unintelligible.However, when you hear such a verbal barrage, you know
i'ts time to be on the alert -Something is about
to happen. I've had the experience of arriving at an uncontrolled
field to find myself surrounded by descending
parachutists. Unsettling, to say the least (on that occasion I do not
recall any announcement).

Dave

Larry Dighera

May 30th 08, 03:33 AM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Dave > wrote
in
>:

>My experience with skydiving operations is that the pilot usually
>makes an "announcement" so fast as to be
>unintelligible.However, when you hear such a verbal barrage, you know
>i'ts time to be on the alert -Something is about
>to happen.

Interesting. First I've heard of that.

>I've had the experience of arriving at an uncontrolled
>field to find myself surrounded by descending
>parachutists. Unsettling, to say the least (on that occasion I do not
>recall any announcement).
>

Oh brother.... That isn't a good situation.

Did you check the NOTAMs before departure? Were you in contact with
ATC at the time that occurred? Did you mention your experience to the
sky-diving operator when you landed?

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 30th 08, 03:56 AM

>> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
>> pilots are saying on the radio.
>
> Respectfully, CJ,
>
> That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
> booted out of my cockpit.

Mine, as well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

May 30th 08, 04:21 AM

On May 29, 10:57 am, Dale > wrote:

>
> Here's one of them:http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg

1. Where's that?
2. I'm jealous.
3. Can I live near there?

sigh...

Jim Logajan

May 30th 08, 04:53 AM

wrote:
> On May 29, 10:57 am, Dale > wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's one of them:http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg
>
> 1. Where's that?
> 2. I'm jealous.
> 3. Can I live near there?

He presumably is in Alaska, and the photo was taken near Knik Glacier.
Found that out by truncating the URL down to what looked like a user home
directory and poking about:

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/

I'm jealous too. ;-)
Alaska is a great place to visit - not sure I'd want to live there. ;-)
Okay, Anchorage or somewhere along the coast wouldn't be so bad.

C J Campbell[_1_]

May 30th 08, 07:27 AM

On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
>> pilots are saying on the radio.
>
> Respectfully, CJ,
>
> That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
> booted out of my cockpit.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.

You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
pilots. I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
radio?

It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
news groups like this.

Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
stupid and dangerous. There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
who is going to be landing first, for example. If there is any doubt
about another pilot's intentions you should be free to ask rather than
be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio. Similarly, I think it is
better to say "I don't see you" instead of keeping silent and hitting
someone mid-air.

I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
psychologically unfit to be pilots.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell[_1_]

May 30th 08, 07:30 AM

On 2008-05-28 21:42:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > said:

>>> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the field
>>> at 4500 feet, heading West..."
>>
>> I hadn't heard that until I started listening to the Fairmont CTAF. What's
>> the point?
>
> I confess to making that announcement a couple of times, when I was a
> newly-minted private pilot, as I passed over my home field. I think
> the guys doing it are just so damned proud of their accomplishment that
> they want their buds -- or anyone else listening -- to know that
> they're "up there"...
>
> It's really just silly.

You know, I have heard flight examiners do this. I have even heard them
criticize instructors for not teaching students to do this. You think
they are doing it because they are "silly" or "proud of their
accomplishment?"

Think again.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Dale[_3_]

May 30th 08, 08:05 AM

In article >,
Clark > wrote:

You sound like one of the as -- er persons who manage to fly through a
skydiving operation endangering not only the jumpers lives but the lives
of their passengers.

> >
> Hmmmm. At the local skydiver airfield the jump pilot makes a clear
> announcement. The correct response is to continue with t-n-g's and let the
> poor dumb *******s who jumped from a perfectly good aircraft fend for
> themselves.
>
> It took a couple of times before the correct response was firmly embedded for
> me. Now that I've imbibed the kool-aid I understand fully that it's the only
> way to deal with these folks and continue to have access to that airfield.
> Frankly, I do understand that sanity is entirely optional and jumping into
> nothingness is a choice. Just don't get in my way while you're doing it.

Dale[_3_]

May 30th 08, 08:07 AM

In article
>,
wrote:

> On May 29, 10:57 am, Dale > wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's one of them:http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg
>
> 1. Where's that?
> 2. I'm jealous.
> 3. Can I live near there?
>
> sigh...

As far as I know it's called "Grasshopper". It's along the north side
of the Knik glacier near Palmer, AK.

Ken S. Tucker

May 30th 08, 08:27 AM

On May 29, 11:27 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane > said:
>
> > C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
> >> pilots are saying on the radio.
>
> > Respectfully, CJ,
>
> > That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
> > booted out of my cockpit.
>
> > Happy Flying!
> > Scott Skylane
>
> Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
> radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
> certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.

Obsessing is a harsh word, consider the communications
foul-up that killed >500 people,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster#Communication_misunderstandings

Personally, I think most pilots formulate what
they are going to say prior to keying the mike,
to provide controller with who I am, position and
intent, clearly and briefly, and of course other
pilots hear that brief to.
I've never heard excessive chatter, tho I got a
little close to a fella flying NORDO, who flew
under me while I was on final, so I aborted and
did another circuit.
....
> It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
> the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
> news groups like this.

Radio work is quite easy, just go talk to the local
controller and he'll brief you, he's the pro.
Ken

Larry Dighera

May 30th 08, 11:01 AM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
>>> pilots are saying on the radio.
>>
>> Respectfully, CJ,
>>
>> That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
>> booted out of my cockpit.
>>
>> Happy Flying!
>> Scott Skylane
>
>Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
>radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
>certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.
>

My statement was that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions. Please provide the rationale that leads you
to believe that that equates to "obsessing about whether another pilot
is misusing the radio."

>You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
>simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
>their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
>are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
>radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
>advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
>pilots.

Because I stated that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
position and intentions, I would like to know how you managed to infer
that I might "stomp all over them." Your conclusion makes no sense to
me, and reflects you lack of logic in teaching your students to
disregard regulations.

>I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
>frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
>stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
>radio?
>

I hope you're not trying to imply that I might do such a thing, or
that such a transmission is permitted by FAA regulations. The pilot
who did it should be referred to a FSDO inspector, and if I were the
student who was the subject of his abuse, that is exactly what I'd do.

>It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
>the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
>news groups like this.

If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.

>
>Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
>stupid and dangerous.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is compliant
with FAA guidelines, yours is not. Perhaps you'd care to explain why
your instruction is contrary to FAA recommendations, and what leads
you to believe that compliance with FARs is stupid and dangerous?

>There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
>who is going to be landing first, for example.

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars, AIM nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident
<http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080515_wz_roanokecrash.103382c61.html>,
the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the
logic of that point of view in this mishap? Can you appreciate, that
deviating from FARs causes a safety hazard? 91.113 dictates that the
pilot farther along toward the runway threshold on final approach will
be landing first unless some arrogant know-it-all decides to deviate
from federal regulations.

Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?

>If there is any doubt about another pilot's intentions you should be
>free to ask rather than be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio.

Why would there be any doubt? The right-of-way is established in FAR
91.113. Only those pilots who deviate from it create doubt. If ALL
comply with 91.113, the FAA believes that pattern operations will be
orderly and safe, or it seems to me they would have mentioned
negotiating deviations from regulations as being appropriate in their
literature and regulations.

>Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of
>keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air.

What leads you to believe that saying "I don't see you" prevents MACs.
I beg you; please do attempt enlighten me on this subject.

>
>I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
>determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
>fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
>communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
>psychologically unfit to be pilots.

Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better than
the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate the
wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be pilots.

In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
from 91.113(g). That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations resulted
in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on final
approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for the
landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even you, in
your current mental state should be capable of seeing the fundamental
truth in that, hopefully.

Cubdriver

May 30th 08, 11:48 AM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 05:01:37 -0700, Shirl >
wrote:

>round here,
>lots of people fly close to pattern altitude. If I'm in the pattern, I
>appreciate knowing what they're staying or continuing on vs. having to
>guess.

I agree. I use a handheld in a J-3 Cub, and ignition noise makes it
impractical for me to broadcast. So the more talk there is, the safer
I feel.

4500 feet is a bit of a stretch, however. The only time I ever flew at
4500 feet was when I was surfing through the White Mountains.

But I really like to know if somebody is flying around my airport at
2000 or even 2500 feet.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

Ken S. Tucker

May 30th 08, 11:49 AM

On May 30, 3:01 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
>
>
> >On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane > said:
>
> >> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >>> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what other
> >>> pilots are saying on the radio.
>
> >> Respectfully, CJ,
>
> >> That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
> >> booted out of my cockpit.
>
> >> Happy Flying!
> >> Scott Skylane
>
> >Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
> >radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
> >certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.
>
> My statement was that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
> position and intentions. Please provide the rationale that leads you
> to believe that that equates to "obsessing about whether another pilot
> is misusing the radio."
>
> >You know, I listen to what other pilots have to say on the radio. I
> >simply do not have time to criticize what they say or grade them on
> >their performance. Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
> >are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
> >radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
> >advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
> >pilots.
>
> Because I stated that I limit my CTAF transmissions to announcing my
> position and intentions, I would like to know how you managed to infer
> that I might "stomp all over them." Your conclusion makes no sense to
> me, and reflects you lack of logic in teaching your students to
> disregard regulations.
>
> >I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
> >frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
> >stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
> >radio?
>
> I hope you're not trying to imply that I might do such a thing, or
> that such a transmission is permitted by FAA regulations. The pilot
> who did it should be referred to a FSDO inspector, and if I were the
> student who was the subject of his abuse, that is exactly what I'd do.
>
> >It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is without
> >the extremely rude and even violent discussion that frequently pervades
> >news groups like this.
>
> If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
> proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
> takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
> The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
> students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
> unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
> PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.
>
>
>
> >Limiting your communication to simply announcing your position is
> >stupid and dangerous.
>
> Obviously we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is compliant
> with FAA guidelines, yours is not. Perhaps you'd care to explain why
> your instruction is contrary to FAA recommendations, and what leads
> you to believe that compliance with FARs is stupid and dangerous?
>
> >There is absolutely no reason not to be clear in
> >who is going to be landing first, for example.
>
> While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
> participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
> at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
> being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars, AIM nor
> being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
> negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident
> <http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080...>,
> the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the
> logic of that point of view in this mishap? Can you appreciate, that
> deviating from FARs causes a safety hazard? 91.113 dictates that the
> pilot farther along toward the runway threshold on final approach will
> be landing first unless some arrogant know-it-all decides to deviate
> from federal regulations.
>
> Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
> airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
> has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
> those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
> 91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
> authority to deviate from federal regulations?
>
> >If there is any doubt about another pilot's intentions you should be
> >free to ask rather than be silent for fear of 'misusing' the radio.
>
> Why would there be any doubt? The right-of-way is established in FAR
> 91.113. Only those pilots who deviate from it create doubt. If ALL
> comply with 91.113, the FAA believes that pattern operations will be
> orderly and safe, or it seems to me they would have mentioned
> negotiating deviations from regulations as being appropriate in their
> literature and regulations.
>
> >Similarly, I think it is better to say "I don't see you" instead of
> >keeping silent and hitting someone mid-air.
>
> What leads you to believe that saying "I don't see you" prevents MACs.
> I beg you; please do attempt enlighten me on this subject.
>
>
>
> >I swear, there seem to be an awful lot of idiots around here who are
> >determined to be 'right,' even if it kills them. People who are so
> >fanatical about not breaking some imagined rule prohibiting air-to-air
> >communication that they are willing to die to prove a point are, IMHO,
> >psychologically unfit to be pilots.
>
> Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better than
> the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate the
> wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be pilots.
>
> In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
> from 91.113(g). That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations resulted
> in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on final
> approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for the
> landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even you, in
> your current mental state should be capable of seeing the fundamental
> truth in that, hopefully.
Agreed Larry
Maybe I got lucky, but in my ground school
a controller came in and did a 1 hour lecture
and removed all ambiguity on radio com.
He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly.
Made complete common sense to me.
Ken

Larry Dighera

May 30th 08, 12:06 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:48:09 -0400, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote in >:

>I use a handheld in a J-3 Cub, and ignition noise makes it
>impractical for me to broadcast.

I wasn't aware that ignition noise affected radio broadcast
transmissions. I'm familiar with radio RECEPTION being compromised by
the broad spectrum of electromagnetic waves resulting from an
electrical spark, but not radio transmission.

Viperdoc

May 30th 08, 12:59 PM

<He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
needed to know, succintly>

Clarity and brevity are not one of Larry's strong points. He also lacks a
little in the departments of flexibility and accepting the opinions of
others.

Larry Dighera

May 30th 08, 02:05 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 06:59:17 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

><He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
>needed to know, succintly>
>
>Clarity and brevity are not one of Larry's strong points. He also lacks a
>little in the departments of flexibility and accepting the opinions of
>others.
>

Colonel, please state how you believe 'accepting the opinions of
others' relates to participation in the self-announce position and
intention broadcasts on CTAF at uncontrolled airports, the subject of
the article to which you followed up.

You're just still smarting from being enlightened about MOA airspace
not being reserved for the exclusive use of military pilots, and the
inapplicability of MARSA to civilian flights, as you apparently
believed. Don't take it personally, Jim. We all participate on
Usenet to learn, don't we?

Unfortunately, attacking the author of an article, instead of
addressing the points contained within the article, does not
contribute to the discussion. Rather, such personal attacks serve to
underscore the attacker's lack of a reasonable rebuttal, and
frustration at the inadequacy of their ability to articulate their
thoughts.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 30th 08, 02:33 PM

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
>> Let's face it. If the CTAF frequency is so busy that getting an
>> announcement that you are flying over at 4500 feet is a problem it might
>> not be a bad idea to get the announcement out there anyway.
>
> In the northeast, the unicom frequencies are quite busy, not because
> of local traffic, but because so few frequencies are shared by so
> many airports.
>

Good point and one I hadn't thought of because I don't fly in that
environment.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 30th 08, 02:38 PM

>>>> I really like are the guys who announce that they're "over-flying the
>>>> field
>>>> at 4500 feet, heading West..."

<snip>

> You know, I have heard flight examiners do this. I have even heard them
> criticize instructors for not teaching students to do this. You think they
> are doing it because they are "silly" or "proud of their accomplishment?"

If every pilot over-flying every airport (remember, the example is at 4000'
AGL) in America announced their position on CTAF, all you'd hear on 122.8
would be a constant shriek.

Any instructor that teaches this practice needs to take another ride with
the FAA. Any DE that expects this practice is going to be sorely
disappointed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

May 30th 08, 02:41 PM

> But I really like to know if somebody is flying around my airport at
> 2000 or even 2500 feet.

Absolutely. When we're doing a sight-seeing ride at 2000' over the city,
(like we did yesterday), it's completely appropriate to announce your
position on CTAF.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Cubdriver

May 30th 08, 04:45 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>I've never heard excessive chatter

Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I don't
hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have a
good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

C J Campbell[_1_]

May 30th 08, 06:09 PM

On 2008-05-30 03:01:27 -0700, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2008052923274916807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:
>
> If you are experiencing difficulty instructing your students in the
> proper use of radio communications as a result of the discussion that
> takes place in this newsgroup, your instruction technique need work.
> The source of your difficulty may be your choice to instruct your
> students to deviate from federal regulations, but such a conclusion is
> unlikely, as it would require YOU to take responsibility for YOUR
> PROBLEM instead of ridiculously blaming the newsgroup.

Oh, grow up, Larry. My students learn to use the radios just fine --
and in accordance with FAA regulations, thank you very much.

As for the rest of your post, it provides ample evidence of exactly
what I said.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Steve Foley

May 30th 08, 06:38 PM

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...

> They discussed the destination, and in what plane.

Gee, I hope it wasn't mine.

Ken S. Tucker

May 30th 08, 06:51 PM

On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >I've never heard excessive chatter
>
> Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
> flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I don't
> hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
> Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
> discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have a
> good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
> five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.

Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
that drivel constipate the control frequency.

> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollinswww.FlyingTigersBook.com
Cheers
Ken

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 30th 08, 07:18 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> I've never heard excessive chatter
>> Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
>> flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I don't
>> hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
>> Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
>> discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have a
>> good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
>> five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.
>
> Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
> I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
> If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
> that drivel constipate the control frequency.

I don't believe anyone here is talking about such communication on a
frequency in use by ATC. CTAF frequencies are what is being discussed.

Gezellig

May 30th 08, 07:26 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:57:55 -0800, Dale wrote:

> When I bought the airplane the wife was "okay" with flying (she was an
> avid skydiver" but not super comfortable. As time went on she began to
> enjoy flying as much as jumping.

I've heard it all now.

Steve Foley

May 30th 08, 07:27 PM

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> I've never heard excessive chatter
> >> Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
> >> flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I don't
> >> hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
> >> Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
> >> discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have a
> >> good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
> >> five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.
> >
> > Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
> > I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
> > If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
> > that drivel constipate the control frequency.
>
> I don't believe anyone here is talking about such communication on a
> frequency in use by ATC. CTAF frequencies are what is being discussed.

Spencer uses 123.0. Tanner-Hiller is the only airport within 25 miles of
Spencer that uses 123.0, but they have very little traffic.

My question is: Can a plane transmitting from twenty five miles away
interfere with local communications?

When I'm in the pattern and hear traffic at remote airports, I usually
simply key the mike and make my position report. My assumption is that I
won't be stepping on a distant transmission, and anyone in my area will hear
me.

Gezellig

May 30th 08, 07:35 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:50:08 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Well I'm not talking about SoCal I'm talking about SoArk and there

Ever fly to Mena?

Gezellig

May 30th 08, 07:38 PM

On Thu, 29 May 2008 23:27:49 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> Guys like Larry are one reason that student pilots
> are afraid of using the radio. They are terrified of offending some
> radio nanny who is going to stomp all over them for saying "please
> advise," a phrase that they may hear all the time from professional
> pilots. I have heard a pilot ream a student over the air on the tower
> frequency for a solid ten minutes because he thought the student was
> stumbling on his transmissions too much. How is that for misusing the
> radio?

Don't worry, this SP has a quick five word answer.

"Roger that, go **** yourself."

Gezellig

May 30th 08, 07:46 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:05:44 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> You're just still smarting from being enlightened about MOA airspace
> not being reserved for the exclusive use of military pilots, and the
> inapplicability of MARSA to civilian flights, as you apparently
> believed. Don't take it personally, Jim. We all participate on
> Usenet to learn, don't we?

A little nonsense
Now and then
Relished by
The wisest men. ~W. Wonka

--
Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But I like an orgy, once in a while.

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 30th 08, 07:48 PM

Gezellig wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:50:08 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>
>> Well I'm not talking about SoCal I'm talking about SoArk and there
>
> Ever fly to Mena?

Yep and will be again to get my plane painted.... and to pick something
up for our former Governor.

[email protected]

May 30th 08, 08:15 PM

Steve Foley > wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> > >>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>> I've never heard excessive chatter
> > >> Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
> > >> flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I don't
> > >> hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
> > >> Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
> > >> discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have a
> > >> good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
> > >> five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.
> > >
> > > Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
> > > I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
> > > If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
> > > that drivel constipate the control frequency.
> >
> > I don't believe anyone here is talking about such communication on a
> > frequency in use by ATC. CTAF frequencies are what is being discussed.

> Spencer uses 123.0. Tanner-Hiller is the only airport within 25 miles of
> Spencer that uses 123.0, but they have very little traffic.

> My question is: Can a plane transmitting from twenty five miles away
> interfere with local communications?

> When I'm in the pattern and hear traffic at remote airports, I usually
> simply key the mike and make my position report. My assumption is that I
> won't be stepping on a distant transmission, and anyone in my area will hear
> me.

Like a lot of things, it depends.

I've had pilots in the pattern at another airport about 40 miles away
complain that I stepped on their transmission.

The transmission from the local should over power the remote to the
other locals, but there is no guarantee that will happen.

And since airplanes use AM, it is quite possible that the remotes
will hear a squeel with both transmitting at the same time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gezellig

May 30th 08, 08:20 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:27 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Gezellig wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:50:08 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Well I'm not talking about SoCal I'm talking about SoArk and there
>>
>> Ever fly to Mena?
>
> Yep and will be again to get my plane painted.... and to pick something
> up for our former Governor.

Do you understand that makes you a dope runner, A CUR ON SOCIETY, HERE'S
PROOF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Gig 601Xl Builder

May 30th 08, 09:43 PM

Viperdoc wrote:
> For those of the readers that are unaware, Larry went trough some
> considerable effort to look up my credentials, both military as well as
> medical, and then sent me a long personal ranting email that detailed how
> people should use and post according to his criteria and standards. It was
> somewhat disorganized and rambling, and made little sense.
>
> I'm flattered that he had nothing better to do than spend the time looking
> up my history and credentials, but it is also a little weird and creepy that
> he would go to such effort to send someone who disagreed with him and his
> approach a rambling and ranting personal message.
>
>

I'd really like to see that. I'm sure it is hilarious.

Jim Logajan

May 30th 08, 10:43 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote:
> For those of the readers that are unaware,

I don't have the means to intercept private e-mails nor do I keep track of
all the petty squabbles on Usenet, so as a result I definitely wasn't
aware.

> Larry went trough some
> considerable effort to look up my credentials, both military as well
> as medical,

What is wrong with checking the credentials of a poster?

I'm afraid I'm guilty of that "crime" on rare occasions. For example, if
someone posts an opinion on, for example:

* their impressions of how an aircraft handles,
* impressions on the use of a product they purchased that I happen to be
interested in,
* offers insight or opinion on something only available by studying
specialist literature I do not have easy access to or requires years of
study to understand,

and I think I would be inclined to influenced by that person's post, if
only I could be sure they were worth listening to on the subject in
question, I'd try to validate that person's background. But there is a
limit to how much effort I'd put into it.

Dave[_5_]

May 30th 08, 11:06 PM

On May 29, 10:33*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT), Dave > wrote
> in
> >:
>
> >My experience with skydiving operations is that the pilot usually
> >makes an "announcement" so fast as to be
> >unintelligible.However, when you hear such a verbal barrage, you know
> >i'ts time to be on the alert -Something is about
> >to happen.
>
> Interesting. *First I've heard of that.

It has happened to me repeatedly. Likewise with people shooting
practice IFR approaches in good VFR weather
(at busy uncontrolled fields)

> >I've had the experience of arriving at an uncontrolled
> >field to find myself surrounded by descending
> >parachutists. Unsettling, to say the least (on that occasion I do not
> >recall any announcement).
>
> Oh brother.... * That isn't a good situation. *
>
> Did you check the NOTAMs before departure? *Were you in contact with
> ATC at the time that occurred? *Did you mention your experience to the
> sky-diving operator when you landed? *

I always get a briefing before going flying. Did not note anything
about the skydiving on that occasion (was a number of years ago). ATC
not involved - was a short flight between two uncontrolled fields. No
contact with the operator.

Dave

Scott Skylane

May 31st 08, 08:43 AM

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
> radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and certainly
> would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.
/snip/

CJ,

Not long after I sent my reply to your post, I realized that I may have
miss-interpreted your meaning. I initially thought that you were
advocating the wholesale disregarding of other's radio transmissions.
But, then I realized what you apparently really meant: That there is no
use obsessing over other's radio ability/useage/technique. The content
is important, not the style. As long as a transmission doesn't
belligerently block relevant communication, it's purpose is served.

I believe we are in full agreement on this subject, and I would humbly
enjoy your company in the air.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 31st 08, 04:28 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:c9458843-efb4-
:

> On May 30, 8:45 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 00:27:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >I've never heard excessive chatter
>>
>> Now that it's coming on to summer, I find that it's a rare
>> flight--especially on a fine Friday, Saturday, or Sunday--when I
don't
>> hear excessive chatter. Today it was a long-drawn-out conversation at
>> Spencer airport in Massachusetts. Somebody was heading south. They
>> discussed the destination, and in what plane. Then a volley of "Have
a
>> good day" "Yeah you too" and all that sh*t. It seemed to go on for
>> five minutes, but I suppose it was only two or three.
>
> Is there provision for mis-use of communications?
> I read there was, but I don't recall it being applied.
> If I was a controller, it would drive me batty hearing
> that drivel constipate the control frequency.

Oow! imagine how much that would improve if oyu ever actually flew.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 31st 08, 04:31 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:
>>
>> Actually, I think it is those pilots who believe they know better
>> than the FAA, and deviate from FAA guidelines, or fail to appreciate
>> the wisdom inherent in the FARs who are operationally unfit to be
>> pilots.
>>

Actually, it is the pilots who don't understand that rules are for the
guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, to quote Douglass
Bader, that are a problem.

>> In the accident cited above, the Stinson pilot attempted to deviate
>> from 91.113(g).

You don't know that.
Fool.

That attempt to deviate from FAA regulations
>> resulted in his attempting to takeoff while another aircraft was on
>> final approach. If he had complied with 91.113(g), and waited for
>> the landing traffic, it would not have landed on top of him. Even
>> you, in your current mental state should be capable of seeing the
>> fundamental truth in that, hopefully.
> Agreed Larry
> Maybe I got lucky, but in my ground school
> a controller came in and did a 1 hour lecture
> and removed all ambiguity on radio com.
> He stressed "clarity and brevity", and what he
> needed to know, succintly.
> Made complete common sense to me.

You're an idiot.

Clear and brief enough for you?

Bertie

Tina

May 31st 08, 05:40 PM

I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left seat
of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that would
have required a normal person's full attention.

He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling ability,
I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
Mooney took some getting used to.

Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was just
like most other pilots I knew.

I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?

On May 29, 8:27 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > My personal favorite, and this was the tower at KBED, is we were
> > flying the ILS into 11 at KBED, at night, ceiling was said to be 300
> > feet or so, and half way in from the OM tower asked for the landing
> > light. Can you think of a better way to ruin night vision than
> > lighting up the inside of a cloud?
>
> > "Hanscom Tower, we'll wait until we break out."
>
> Probably the same Hanscom controller that told someone to position and hold
> while I was on short final. What really sucked was that the sun was shining
> through the prop on final. I really didn't enjoy going through that strobe
> effect again.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 31st 08, 05:41 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 29, 11:27 pm, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-29 12:39:04 -0700, Scott Skylane >
>> said:
>>
>> > C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> >> Personally, I have better things to do than to worry about what
>> >> other pilots are saying on the radio.
>>
>> > Respectfully, CJ,
>>
>> > That attitude may well get you killed, and would certainly get you
>> > booted out of my cockpit.
>>
>> > Happy Flying!
>> > Scott Skylane
>>
>> Respectfully, obsessing about whether another pilot is misusing the
>> radio, as Larry does, is far more likely to get you killed and
>> certainly would get you booted out of *my* cockpit.
>
> Obsessing is a harsh word, consider the communications
> foul-up that killed >500 people,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster#Communication_misunders
t
> andings
>
> Personally, I think most pilots formulate what
> they are going to say prior to keying the mike,
> to provide controller with who I am, position and
> intent, clearly and briefly, and of course other
> pilots hear that brief to.
> I've never heard excessive chatter, tho I got a
> little close to a fella flying NORDO, who flew
> under me while I was on final, so I aborted and
> did another circuit.
> ...
>> It is very difficult to teach proper radio procedures as it is
>> without the extremely rude and even violent discussion that
>> frequently pervades news groups like this.
>
> Radio work is quite easy, just go talk to the local
> controller and he'll brief you, he's the pro

I'm sure they'd be thrilled to see you Kenny.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

May 31st 08, 05:42 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> I'd hear, "Roger, your clear".

I'm sure you did. You can even hear grammatically correct.
>
> Next I'd key radio just before doing my 30 degree
> bank to get into the down-wind, so the controller
> can get an easy visual of me, "YYG turning onto
> downwind". Same for every other turn, to final.
>
> Radio work is 1st for the controller, and secondly
> for other a/c, he's the boss.

No, he isn't fjukktard.

Bertie

Gezellig

May 31st 08, 06:02 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:43:35 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> Actually, it was a little weird and creepy to know that someone had gone to
> all that trouble to look up my history and background, just to send me an
> email lecture on how to use Usenet. Luckily, I work with several federal law
> enforcement agents and federal attorneys in the Air Force, and if it got out
> of hand, I was going to ask their advice and show them the messages.

Messages? I thought it was one email. He's stalking you? Which fleas do
you work with?

Cubdriver

May 31st 08, 11:05 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 17:38:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>> They discussed the destination, and in what plane.
>
>Gee, I hope it wasn't mine.

"Are you in the Cub?"

"Nope. In the xxxxx."

(You immediately came to mind, Steve :)

I can't remember where the Wanderer was going. New York?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

Cubdriver

May 31st 08, 11:13 PM

On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>Spencer uses 123.0. Tanner-Hiller is the only airport within 25 miles of
>Spencer that uses 123.0, but they have very little traffic.

I was just past Plum Island (123.0) and heading south. At 2500 feet I
can hear four states (though to be sure, the radius doesn't have to be
very large to allow that: New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont,
Massachusetts).

>
>My question is: Can a plane transmitting from twenty five miles away
>interfere with local communications?

Oh, I think so. I often key to transmit and send out this awful
squeal, which I assume means someone else (who I can't hear with the
rubber ducky antenna) is transmitting at the same time.

(I don't think you can hear me, though! I have tried it, inbound to
Hampton, at 10 miles, 5 miles, 2 miles ... it's not until I'm almost
overhead that I can raise George.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

Margy Natalie

June 1st 08, 03:01 AM

Tina wrote:
> I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
> talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left seat
> of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
> needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
> conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that would
> have required a normal person's full attention.
>
> He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling ability,
> I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
> Mooney took some getting used to.
>
> Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was just
> like most other pilots I knew.
>
> I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?
>
Bingo, I have a friend who is a former U-2 pilot and he flew some
manuvers made the instruments look broken (never bounced the needles)
while talking to someone in the back seat (turned around).

Wow,

Margy

Tina

June 1st 08, 03:45 AM

On May 31, 10:01 pm, Margy Natalie > wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
> > talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left seat
> > of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
> > needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
> > conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that would
> > have required a normal person's full attention.
>
> > He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling ability,
> > I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
> > Mooney took some getting used to.
>
> > Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was just
> > like most other pilots I knew.
>
> > I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?
>
> Bingo, I have a friend who is a former U-2 pilot and he flew some
> manuvers made the instruments look broken (never bounced the needles)
> while talking to someone in the back seat (turned around).
>
> Wow,
>
> Margy

I guess that's part of the right stuff they talk about. Tha amazing
thing is how much time the top tier of pilots seem to have. I like the
broken instrument comment. Why have needles if you're not going to
make them move a little bit?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 1st 08, 03:45 AM

Margy Natalie > wrote in news:4841fb1c$0$24999
:

> Tina wrote:
>> I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
>> talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left seat
>> of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
>> needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
>> conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that would
>> have required a normal person's full attention.
>>
>> He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling
ability,
>> I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
>> Mooney took some getting used to.
>>
>> Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was just
>> like most other pilots I knew.
>>
>> I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?
>>
> Bingo, I have a friend who is a former U-2 pilot and he flew some
> manuvers made the instruments look broken (never bounced the needles)
> while talking to someone in the back seat (turned around).
>

It's just a matter of experience. If you do it so much that it's second
nature, it frees up a lot of capacity. Having said that, the autopilot
does so much of it nowadays....

Bertie
>

Tina

June 1st 08, 02:39 PM

On May 31, 10:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Margy Natalie > wrote in news:4841fb1c$0$24999
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tina wrote:
> >> I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
> >> talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left seat
> >> of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
> >> needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
> >> conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that would
> >> have required a normal person's full attention.
>
> >> He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling
> ability,
> >> I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
> >> Mooney took some getting used to.
>
> >> Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was just
> >> like most other pilots I knew.
>
> >> I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?
>
> > Bingo, I have a friend who is a former U-2 pilot and he flew some
> > manuvers made the instruments look broken (never bounced the needles)
> > while talking to someone in the back seat (turned around).
>
> It's just a matter of experience. If you do it so much that it's second
> nature, it frees up a lot of capacity. Having said that, the autopilot
> does so much of it nowadays....
>
> Bertie
>
>

I can't fully agree, Bertie. Some people just repeat the same hour of
experience a hundred or a thousand times. Some gifted ones -- Hoover
comes to mind, as does the man I mentioned, or the one Margy did --
are just superior. It takes much less training and practice for them
to get 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the rest of us in a given
field. I can probably beat most athletes who are not golfers for the
first couple of rounds, but that would not be the way to bet at the
50th round.

For that matter, I can assure you on a level field I would not compete
well professionally with some of the post docs I'm training. It's nice
to be queen!

[email protected]

June 1st 08, 04:44 PM

On May 31, 6:13 pm, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, "Steve Foley"
>
> > wrote:
> >Spencer uses 123.0. Tanner-Hiller is the only airport within 25 miles of
> >Spencer that uses 123.0, but they have very little traffic.
>
> I was just past Plum Island (123.0) and heading south. At 2500 feet I
> can hear four states (though to be sure, the radius doesn't have to be
> very large to allow that: New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont,
> Massachusetts).
>
>
>
> >My question is: Can a plane transmitting from twenty five miles away
> >interfere with local communications?
>
> Oh, I think so. I often key to transmit and send out this awful
> squeal, which I assume means someone else (who I can't hear with the
> rubber ducky antenna) is transmitting at the same time.
>
> (I don't think you can hear me, though! I have tried it, inbound to
> Hampton, at 10 miles, 5 miles, 2 miles ... it's not until I'm almost
> overhead that I can raise George.)
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollinswww.FlyingTigersBook.com

While flying over southern Long Island (HWV) at pattern altitude, it
is common to hear communications from Sky Acres NY and Lincoln Park NJ
(both 60-70 nm away), as well as from a few other airports, on the
122.8 CTAF. Some signals are strong; others are not.

Gezellig

June 1st 08, 09:14 PM

On Sat, 31 May 2008 14:31:14 -0500, Viperdoc wrote:

> You are correct in just one message, which is why I didn't pursue any other
> action. It was and still is a bit creepy. If you think this is normal and
> not a little over the top, so be it.

Heck, how do we know? Post the email.

Viperdoc[_3_]

June 1st 08, 09:27 PM

> Heck, how do we know? Post the email.

Nah, it's just not worth it. Guys like him are just a bunch of know-it-all
blowhards that have to have the last word in every conversation. If he does
it again it may be a different story.

Just got back from flying to a great breakfast, and then took my son up in
the Extra- what a great flying day. After a day like today, it kind of puts
things in perspective: guys like him are just little mental speedbumps.

I'm also getting ready for a big vacation trip to France next weekend-
perhaps I should look up Anthony when I get there- where's Rue de General in
Paris?

I wonder if he actually looks like my mental picture, or worse?

B A R R Y

June 1st 08, 10:41 PM

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 08:44:13 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>
>While flying over southern Long Island (HWV) at pattern altitude, it
>is common to hear communications from Sky Acres NY and Lincoln Park NJ
>(both 60-70 nm away), as well as from a few other airports, on the
>122.8 CTAF. Some signals are strong; others are not.

I've heard those airports over Provincetown, MA!

I can also hear Montgomery, NY over Chester, CT.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 12:49 AM

Tina > wrote in news:46ee5bc6-d0b2-4563-a1c4-
:

> On May 31, 10:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Margy Natalie > wrote in news:4841fb1c$0$24999
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tina wrote:
>> >> I had a totally different kind of experience at BED that is fun to
>> >> talk about. We had an ex Navy pilot -- flew F14's -- in the left
seat
>> >> of the Mooney. He hand flew the ILS on a bumpy day under the hood,
>> >> needles rock solid in the middle, all the while carrying on a
>> >> conversation with us about an unrelated technical matter that
would
>> >> have required a normal person's full attention.
>>
>> >> He was probably the best pilot, in terms of airplane handling
>> ability,
>> >> I had even witnessed. He did confess the low stall speeds in the
>> >> Mooney took some getting used to.
>>
>> >> Other than very fit, handsome, funny, skilled and smart he was
just
>> >> like most other pilots I knew.
>>
>> >> I wonder what it would take to distract him on final: Incoming?
>>
>> > Bingo, I have a friend who is a former U-2 pilot and he flew some
>> > manuvers made the instruments look broken (never bounced the
needles)
>> > while talking to someone in the back seat (turned around).
>>
>> It's just a matter of experience. If you do it so much that it's
second
>> nature, it frees up a lot of capacity. Having said that, the
autopilot
>> does so much of it nowadays....
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> I can't fully agree, Bertie. Some people just repeat the same hour of
> experience a hundred or a thousand times. Some gifted ones -- Hoover
> comes to mind, as does the man I mentioned, or the one Margy did --
> are just superior. It takes much less training and practice for them
> to get 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the rest of us in a given
> field. I can probably beat most athletes who are not golfers for the
> first couple of rounds, but that would not be the way to bet at the
> 50th round.

OK, that's true enough, but I wouldn't attribute it to training or even
the speed of learning so much. More to an insatiable curiosity...
>
> For that matter, I can assure you on a level field I would not compete
> well professionally with some of the post docs I'm training. It's nice
> to be queen!

He he.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 01:14 AM

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 08:44:13 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>While flying over southern Long Island (HWV) at pattern altitude, it
>>is common to hear communications from Sky Acres NY and Lincoln Park NJ
>>(both 60-70 nm away), as well as from a few other airports, on the
>>122.8 CTAF. Some signals are strong; others are not.
>
>
> I've heard those airports over Provincetown, MA!
>
> I can also hear Montgomery, NY over Chester, CT.
>

In soe conditions you'll be able to hear furhter than that! I've heard
VHF transmissions well over 1,000 miles away even at low levels.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:55 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's just a matter of experience. If you do it so much that it's second
> nature, it frees up a lot of capacity. Having said that, the autopilot
> does so much of it nowadays....
>
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

Does that mean you can do other things while you masturbate.

Maxwell[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 05:56 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> OK, that's true enough, but I wouldn't attribute it to training or even
> the speed of learning so much. More to an insatiable curiosity...

Of coarse you do Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know everyone,
you've done everything

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 12:34 PM

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:27:58 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>> Heck, how do we know? Post the email.
>
>
>Nah, it's just not worth it. Guys like him are just a bunch of know-it-all
>blowhards that have to have the last word in every conversation. If he does
>it again it may be a different story.
>
>Just got back from flying to a great breakfast, and then took my son up in
>the Extra- what a great flying day. After a day like today, it kind of puts
>things in perspective: guys like him are just little mental speedbumps.
>
>I'm also getting ready for a big vacation trip to France next weekend-
>perhaps I should look up Anthony when I get there- where's Rue de General in
>Paris?
>
>I wonder if he actually looks like my mental picture, or worse?
>
>
highlight of the trip could be committing him :-)
can you iron straightjackets?

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 2nd 08, 12:37 PM

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:56:34 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>
>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> OK, that's true enough, but I wouldn't attribute it to training or even
>> the speed of learning so much. More to an insatiable curiosity...
>
>Of coarse you do Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know everyone,
>you've done everything
>

he does provide a nice relief to your comments from the other end of
the spectrum.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 2nd 08, 02:00 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:d3L0k.3183$t07.226
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It's just a matter of experience. If you do it so much that it's
second
>> nature, it frees up a lot of capacity. Having said that, the
autopilot
>> does so much of it nowadays....
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> Does that mean you can do other things while you masturbate.
>
>
>

Sure!

Can't you?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 02:02 PM

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:56:34 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, that's true enough, but I wouldn't attribute it to training or
>>> even the speed of learning so much. More to an insatiable
>>> curiosity...
>>
>>Of coarse you do Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know
>>everyone, you've done everything
>>
>
> he does provide a nice relief to your comments from the other end of
> the spectrum.
>

True.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 02:03 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

>> Heck, how do we know? Post the email.
>
>
> Nah, it's just not worth it. Guys like him are just a bunch of
> know-it-all blowhards that have to have the last word in every
> conversation. If he does it again it may be a different story.
>
> Just got back from flying to a great breakfast, and then took my son
> up in the Extra- what a great flying day. After a day like today, it
> kind of puts things in perspective: guys like him are just little
> mental speedbumps.
>
> I'm also getting ready for a big vacation trip to France next weekend-
> perhaps I should look up Anthony when I get there- where's Rue de
> General in Paris?
>
> I wonder if he actually looks like my mental picture, or worse?
>
>
>
>

I'm actually there at the moment. ( Well Toulouse, but Paris in a few
days) I don't think I'll bother somehow.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 2nd 08, 02:04 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> OK, that's true enough, but I wouldn't attribute it to training or
>> even the speed of learning so much. More to an insatiable
>> curiosity...
>
> Of coarse you do Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know
> everyone, you've done everything
>
>
>

Not everything. I want to fly a Spad, for one thing..

Bertie

Larry Dighera

June 3rd 08, 01:24 AM

On 02 Jun 2008 22:58:40 GMT, Robert Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>"Viperdoc" wrote
>> I still might need internet access to continue Anthony bashing.
>
>Conduct certainly befitting a USAF officer.
>
>Bob Moore
>Former USN aviator

I thought it was just me.

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 3rd 08, 04:54 PM

On 02 Jun 2008 22:58:40 GMT, Robert Moore >
wrote:

>"Viperdoc" wrote
>> I still might need internet access to continue Anthony bashing.
>
>Conduct certainly befitting a USAF officer.
>
>Bob Moore
>Former USN aviator

dont be a clown bob. he has never posted as an officer and in his
private time he is entitled to be a private person.
I'm not convinced from any of his posts that your assertion of him
being a serving officer is even correct.

below is some of the tripe that anthony posts ad nauseum. if you cant
see at least 5 things evidenced in his posting that he does not
understand then you are as dumb as anthony.

>But in Class B, ATC can direct you to a heading (FAR 91.123(b)), rather than
>simply allow you to continue on your own. If ATC does this, and you see a
>cloud, and you ask for a different heading, and ATC says "unable," what do you
>do? Regulations require that you stay clear of clouds, but you're also
>supposed to follow ATC instructions. And if you refuse ATC instructions for a
>cloud, the cloud will soon be gone, even though your refusal will stay on
>tape. If ATC ends up with a deal because you didn't obey, who gets in
>trouble? What happens? There's a potential real danger to you either way,
>since there might be an aircraft hiding in the clouds, and not following ATC
>might put you in conflict with other traffic. There's also a legal danger,
>since if you do something that the FAA considers wrong, you could get in
>trouble.

this kid posts everywhere. he answers student questions with utter
nonsense. he argues with expert pilots that they are incompetent.
the "bashing" is a last resort and is actually a combination of
telling the idiot that he is wrong and posting succinct accurate
information to counter the utter bull**** he comes out with.

why do we do this? in the interests of aviation safety.
the kid is a psychiatric case who will not stop.

so dont be a clown bob.
Stealth Pilot

Maxwell[_2_]

June 3rd 08, 05:39 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> so dont be a clown bob.
> Stealth Pilot

But based on your experience as an ME, you think he is psychologically
qualified to fly?

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 4th 08, 03:10 AM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Maybe you can help me. Although it will be a vacation, I still might
> need internet access to continue Anthony bashing. Do you know if my US
> GSM broadband card will work in Europe, and if so, is it super
> expensive?
>
>

Dunno. When I'm in Europe most of the hotels we stay in provide free
broadband connections as part of the crew deal and that's usually where i
connect. I've seen other guys using them in Cafes and what not though.
(****ing annoying that, you're supposed to talk sedition and ogle the
wimmin in cafes, not **** around with your computer)
I think you probably need to strike a deal with your privider for roaming
in Europe in order to get the best rate, though.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 4th 08, 03:11 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On 02 Jun 2008 22:58:40 GMT, Robert Moore >
> wrote in 8>:
>
>>"Viperdoc" wrote
>>> I still might need internet access to continue Anthony bashing.
>>
>>Conduct certainly befitting a USAF officer.
>>
>>Bob Moore
>>Former USN aviator
>
>
> I thought it was just me.
>
>

It is.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 4th 08, 03:12 AM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Bob:
>
> I've asked you before to contact me offline if you wanted to discuss
> this. However, making it some sort of petty interservice rivalry
> simply makes you look bad.

Really? I thought it was required of all he services to do that at every
opportunity! In fact I thought you guys had to sign an outh stating that
you would only refer to the personnell in other services as "pukes".

Bertie

Gezellig[_2_]

June 4th 08, 05:30 AM

Stealth Pilot formulated the question :
> this kid posts everywhere. he answers student questions with utter
> nonsense. he argues with expert pilots that they are incompetent.
> the "bashing" is a last resort and is actually a combination of
> telling the idiot that he is wrong and posting succinct accurate
> information to counter the utter bull**** he comes out with.

> why do we do this? in the interests of aviation safety.
> the kid is a psychiatric case who will not stop.

> so dont be a clown bob.
> Stealth Pilot

So you act like an ass, often never discussing these "utter nonsenses"
of Mx in the "interests of aviation safety". 8-o

Bunch of pure bull**** to explain infantile behaviours and your Usenet
funsies. Anytime one lowers their own credibility by meeting the
criteria of its "adversarial", you now have two dolts, no credibility
and a laughable mess/mass.

That is what you have but please, continue, just don't expect that any
normally thinking ADULT will accept your procrastinaed lies as anything
other than the lies they are.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

June 4th 08, 04:33 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> I wonder if they have WIFI by the pool- I could accomplish a lot at
> the topless ones (essentially any and all, by definition, in France).

Pretty much everywhere around the med, but especially France...

> Perhaps I could cut two holes in the screen to look through and still
> bash Anthony at the same time while drinking and catching a tan- now
> that's multitasking.

Heh he. you should really ask him out for a drink. If you're paying,
he'll come!

BTW, be sure to visit the Musee d'la Air at Le Bourget. It's absolutely
fantastic.

Bertie

>

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 5th 08, 04:28 PM

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:33 -0400, Gezellig >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot formulated the question :
>> this kid posts everywhere. he answers student questions with utter
>> nonsense. he argues with expert pilots that they are incompetent.
>> the "bashing" is a last resort and is actually a combination of
>> telling the idiot that he is wrong and posting succinct accurate
>> information to counter the utter bull**** he comes out with.
>
>> why do we do this? in the interests of aviation safety.
>> the kid is a psychiatric case who will not stop.
>
>> so dont be a clown bob.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>So you act like an ass, often never discussing these "utter nonsenses"
>of Mx in the "interests of aviation safety". 8-o
>
>Bunch of pure bull**** to explain infantile behaviours and your Usenet
>funsies. Anytime one lowers their own credibility by meeting the
>criteria of its "adversarial", you now have two dolts, no credibility
>and a laughable mess/mass.
>
>That is what you have but please, continue, just don't expect that any
>normally thinking ADULT will accept your procrastinaed lies as anything
>other than the lies they are.
>

I can see why bertie baits you loons. gods you've got a chip on your
shoulder.

if you actually understood anything meaningful of aviation you'd find
that I post the answer to his question. sometimes the answer is in one
word because that is what the answer is. I'm thinking of the farce
regarding asymetric weight where the answer was, still is, dihedral.
but I suppose you thought I was just being obscure :-)

sorry to keep you waiting but last night I was down on the airfield
working on my aeroplane.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 5th 08, 04:33 PM

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:39:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> so dont be a clown bob.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>But based on your experience as an ME, you think he is psychologically
>qualified to fly?
>

interesting fixation you have there.
you make a conclusion, which is incorrect btw, then you accept that it
is fact, then you blather on with nonsense statements based on the
conclusion you jumped to.

I'm not a ME or a medical examiner or a DAME or anything in that
field.
I'm an Industrial Control Systems Engineer.

the ViperDoc is a good cookie in my opinion.
Stealth Pilot

Maxwell[_2_]

June 5th 08, 05:39 PM

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:39:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>But based on your experience as an ME, you think he is psychologically
>>qualified to fly?
>>
>
> interesting fixation you have there.
> you make a conclusion, which is incorrect btw, then you accept that it
> is fact, then you blather on with nonsense statements based on the
> conclusion you jumped to.
>
> I'm not a ME or a medical examiner or a DAME or anything in that
> field.
> I'm an Industrial Control Systems Engineer.
>
> the ViperDoc is a good cookie in my opinion.
> Stealth Pilot

You have a tremendous grasp on the obvious.

I am well aware that are not it the least bet qualified to access my
psychological fitness to fly, and was indicating that based on your limited
experience as am ME.

Perhaps it's a US vs. Ausie take on humor. If I took unfair advantage, I
apologize.

Jay Honeck[_7_]

June 5th 08, 05:40 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:39:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But based on your experience as an ME, you think he is
>>>psychologically qualified to fly?
>>>
>>
>> interesting fixation you have there.
>> you make a conclusion, which is incorrect btw, then you accept that
>> it is fact, then you blather on with nonsense statements based on the
>> conclusion you jumped to.
>>
>> I'm not a ME or a medical examiner or a DAME or anything in that
>> field.
>> I'm an Industrial Control Systems Engineer.
>>
>> the ViperDoc is a good cookie in my opinion.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
> You have a tremendous grasp on the obvious.
>
> I am well aware that are not it the least bet qualified to access my
> psychological fitness to fly, and was indicating that based on your
> limited experience as am ME.
>
> Perhaps it's a US vs. Ausie take on humor. If I took unfair advantage,
> I apologize.
>
>
Fjuk you you ignorant piece of ****.

Luv

Jay Honeck, Iowatard

Maxwell[_2_]

June 5th 08, 06:14 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>>
> Fjuk you you ignorant piece of ****.
>
> Luv
>
> Jay Honeck, Iowatard

You would never go back to prairie chickens and german shepards.

Jay Honeck[_12_]

June 5th 08, 06:20 PM

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:aaV1k.3460$QI2.2674
@newsfe23.lga:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Fjuk you you ignorant piece of ****.
>>
>> Luv
>>
>> Jay Honeck, Iowatard
>
> You would never go back to prairie chickens and german shepards.
>

Thy're both too big for my little one

Jay Honeck

Daryl Hunt[_3_]

June 6th 08, 02:37 AM

People, if you are going to answer any of the AUKk00ks, remove any mention
of any NG with the word "kook" in it. The AUKk00ks are actually harmless if
left to themselves.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:39:44 -0500, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But based on your experience as an ME, you think he is
>>>>psychologically qualified to fly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> interesting fixation you have there.
>>> you make a conclusion, which is incorrect btw, then you accept that
>>> it is fact, then you blather on with nonsense statements based on the
>>> conclusion you jumped to.
>>>
>>> I'm not a ME or a medical examiner or a DAME or anything in that
>>> field.
>>> I'm an Industrial Control Systems Engineer.
>>>
>>> the ViperDoc is a good cookie in my opinion.
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>> You have a tremendous grasp on the obvious.
>>
>> I am well aware that are not it the least bet qualified to access my
>> psychological fitness to fly, and was indicating that based on your
>> limited experience as am ME.
>>
>> Perhaps it's a US vs. Ausie take on humor. If I took unfair advantage,
>> I apologize.
>>
>>
> Fjuk you you ignorant piece of ****.
>
> Luv
>
> Jay Honeck, Iowatard

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **